Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 203 results found
If science can't even disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God? I often hear the comment, "Science has proved there is no God." Don't ever be bullied by such a statement. Science is completely incapable of proving such a thing.
Thomas Nagel, atheist and philosopher professor at New York University, finds signficant weaknesses in neo-Darwinian evolution and chemical evolution.  He published his view in a new Oxford University Press book Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.  Evolution News and Views provides a number of
Some claim we at STR force people to choose between science and faith becuase we don't believe evolution is true.  That's a false dichotomy, or a false choice.  Evolution is a theory of science - it's not science.  And no, we don't believe evolution is an accurate account of origins because we don't think the evidence supports it, the Bible allows for it, and philosophy counts against it.
I've been watching a new TV show, Perception, on TNT.  It's the latest variation of one of my all-time favorties, Monk, where the main character's disability gives him a unique edge in solving crime.  The character Dr. Daniel Pierce is an accomplished professor of neuroscience who struggles with schizophrenia himself.  And he makes a mistake that expresses a logical fallacy common in science today.
Some scientists suggest so.  Before I can decide, I have a couple of questions: 1. What do they mean by science? and 2. What do they mean by religion?
I wrote yesterday about the inadequacy of the evolutoinary process to explain the development and complexity of life we observe.  Theistic evolutionists accept the proposition that the natural processes are adequate to explain this.  In practice, theistic evolution is a naturalistic view of the origins of life.  TE does allow for other miraculous events and God's sustaining power, but not God's intervention for creative purposes once the natural process has begun.  In an
Greg's guest on the radio program Sunday was Fuz Rana from Reasons To Believe to discuss theistic evolution. (Jump to the third hour as indicated by the chapter marks.)
Greg interviewed Stephen Meyer on Sunday's radio program, who had some very helpful thinking about theistic evolution.  He offered questions and problems from a biblical and a scientific standpoint.  (Here's the program - it's in hour three, which you can skip to in this enhanced version with chapter marks.)  Meyer is the author of Signature in the Cell
Jay Wesley Richards explains why theistic evolution is an attempt to join incompatible ideas. The view requires redefining one of the terms, which fundamentally changes the terms.
Sam Harris is attempting to offer a "scientific" explanation for morality. He's responding to the grounding challenge for naturalism - where do moral values fit in a purely material, physical world? This is a significant challenge for naturalism and atheism since morality is something human beings universally know is real. So any worldview has to be able to account for it or else it's a fatal flaw of that worldview. Harris attempts to explain how science can account for moral values.